Public insults to be legalised but grossly offensive messages still criminal

15 January 2013 by

Twitter-Logo UK human rights blogSection 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws the use of “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviourwill be amended to remove the word ‘insulting’. The amendment is the result of a successful, high-profile campaign which asked “Do we really need the police and the courts to deal with insults?

That campaign, supported by major organisations and many MPs, prompted a successful House of Lords vote to amend the wording in December. That vote was supported by the Crown Prosecution Service, with Director Keir Starmer writing that his organisation was “unable to identify a case in which the alleged behaviour leading to conviction could not properly be characterised as ‘abusive’ as well as ‘insulting“. The Home Secretary has now, rather grudgingly, said she will not oppose amendment.

So, we will be able to insult in public. But thanks to section 127 the Communications Act 2003, it is still up to the police and the courts to decide whether we have sent grossly offensive messages on Facebook, Twitter and in practically any other communications medium. As I have argued before, this law was designed to prevent malicious telephone calls long before the entire world began messaging each other in public over social media. Like the ‘insulting’ ban in the Public Order Act, this has become a high impediment to free speech and urgently needs reform.

The Crown Prosecution Service has done a reasonable job with its new prosecution guidelines. But there is still a significant potential for abuse, with people being hauled in front of local magistrates  and pleading guilty before anyone finds out. Last year there were almost 5,000 reports and 653 people charged for ‘social media offences‘, a huge increase. But ‘social media offences’ are poorly defined and it appears that nobody  is keeping track of offences affecting free speech.

Just like the campaigners pointed out about section 5 POA, there  have been a number of worrying prosecutions under s127, including some for stupid, offensive jokes made on Twitter and Facebook, intended for small audiences. Worryingly, many successful prosecutions have been against adolescents who had no idea that their stupid jokes could lead to prison sentences.

There are three key questions in this debate. First, do we really want police and judges deciding which jokes, throwaway comments and idiotic off-the-cuff remarks are ‘grossly offensive’? Secondly, is there a single conviction under this law which has made society a safer, better place without unduly impinging on free speech? Thirdly, does s.127 add anything to the already existing criminal protections against harassment and stalking?

In my view, the answers to all three questions is ‘no’. Section 127 outlawing grossly offensive communications is an out of date, bad law which impinges on freedom of speech. Like its ‘insulting’ cousin under section 5 of the Public Order Act, it needs to be reformed.

Sign up to free human rights update s by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:


  1. […] read Adam’s post about the word ‘insulting’ being removed from Public Order act 1986 s 5 with interest. In it he […]

  2. Reblogged this on Julian Summerhayes and commented:
    A post worth reading although there is still much clarity that is lacking (not in the post but in the law).

    1. Sounds to me like someone needs to start a campaign similar to the Reform Section 5 campaign to protect free speech on the social media websites.

  3. High time for some common-sense, as well as restoring a sense of proportion to the meaning of free speech.

  4. James Lawson says:

    Home Secretary’s announcement to Parliament is here:

    It is interesting to note that the objection the Police have to its removal is that it a ‘useful tool’ to the maintenance of public order!

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Thanks James- I have added that link to the post

  5. Roland says:

    Well said and couldn’t agree more

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: